Synthetics

As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. Since Fiji is based on the same GCN 1.2 architecture as Tonga (R9 285), we are not expecting too much new here.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

First off we have tessellation performance. As we discussed in greater detail in our look at Fiji’s architecture, AMD has made some tessellation/geometry optimizations in GCN 1.2, and then went above and beyond that for Fiji. As a result tessellation performance on the R9 Fury X is even between than the R9 285 and the R9 290X, improving by about 33% in the case of TessMark. This is the best performing AMD product to date, besting even the R9 295X2. However AMD still won’t quite catch up to NVIDIA for the time being.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Texel Fill

As for texture fillrates, the performance here is outstanding, though not unexpected. R9 Fury X has 256 texture units, the most of any single GPU card, and this increased texture fillrate is exactly in line with the theoretical predictions based on the increased number of texture units.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill

Finally, the 3DMark Vantage pixel fillrate test is not surprising, but it is none the less a solid and important outcome for AMD. Thanks to their delta frame buffer compression technology, they see the same kind of massive pixel fillrate improvements here as we saw on the R9 285 last year, and NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2 series. At this point R9 Fury X’s ROPs are pushing more than 40 billion pixels per second, a better than 2x improvement over the R9 290X despite the identical ROP count, and an important reminder of the potential impact of the combination of compression and HBM’s very high memory bandwidth. AMD’s ROPs are reaching efficiency levels simply not attainable before.

Grand Theft Auto V Compute
POST A COMMENT

458 Comments

View All Comments

  • chizow - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    @piiman - I guess we'll see soon enough, I'm confident it won't make any difference given GPU prices have gone up and up anyways. If anything we may see price stabilization as we've seen in the CPU industry. Reply
  • medi03 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    Another portion of bulshit from nVidia troll.

    AMD never ever had more than 25% of CPU share. Doom to Intel, my ass.
    Even in Prescott times Intell was selling more CPUs and for higher price.
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link

    @medi03 AMD was up to 30% a few times and they did certainly have performance leadership at the time of K8 but of course they wanted to charge anyone for the privilege. Higher price? No, $450 for entry level Athlon 64, much more than what they charged in the past and certainly much more than Intel was charging at the time going up to $1500 on the high end with their FX chips. Reply
  • Samus - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link

    Best interest? Broken up for scraps? You do realize how important AMD is to people who are Intel\NVidia fans right?

    Without AMD, Intel and NVidia are unchallenged, and we'll be back to paying $250 for a low-end video card and $300 for a mid-range CPU. There would be no GTX 750's or Pentium G3258's in the <$100 tier.
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link

    @Samus, they're irrelevant in the CPU market and have been for years, and yet amazingly, prices are as low as ever since Intel began dominating AMD in performance when they launched Core 2. Since then I've upgraded 5x and have not paid more than $300 for a high-end Intel CPU. How does this happen without competition from AMD as you claim? Oh right, because Intel is still competing with itself and needs to provide enough improvement in order to entice me to buy another one of their products and "upgrade".

    The exact same thing will happen in the GPU sector, with or without AMD. Not worried at all, in fact I'm looking forward to the day a company with deep pockets buys out AMD and reinvigorates their products, I may actually have a reason to buy AMD (or whatever it is called after being bought out) again!
    Reply
  • Iketh - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link

    you overestimate the human drive... if another isn't pushing us, we will get lazy and that's not an argument... what we'll do instead to make people upgrade is release products in steps planned out much further into the future that are even smaller steps than how intel is releasing now Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link

    I think this chart shows a better view of who was the underdog and when:

    http://i59.tinypic.com/5uk3e9.jpg

    ATi were ahead for the 9xxx series, and that's it. Moreover, NVIDIA's chipset struggles with Intel were in 2009 and settled in early 2011, something that would've benefitted NVIDIA far more than Intel's settlement with AMD as it would've done far less damage to NVIDIA's financials over a much shorter period of time.

    The lack of higher end APUs hasn't helped, nor has the issue with actually trying to get a GPU onto a CPU die in the first place. Remember that when Intel tried it with Clarkdale/Arrandale, the graphics and IMC were 45nm, sitting alongside everything else which was 32nm.
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link

    I think you have to look at a bigger sample than that, riding on the 9000 series momentum, AMD was competitive for years with a near 50/50 share through the X800/X1900 series. And then G80/R600 happened and they never really recovered. There was a minor blip with Cypress vs. Fermi where AMD got close again but Nvidia quickly righted things with GF106 and GF110 (GTX 570/580). Reply
  • Scali - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link

    nVidia wasn't the underdog in terms of technology. nVidia was the choice of gamers. ATi was big because they had been around since the early days of CGA and Hercules, and had lots of OEM contracts.
    In terms of technology and performance, ATi was always struggling to keep up with nVidia, and they didn't reach parity until the Radeon 8500/9700-era, even though nVidia was the newcomer and ATi had been active in the PC market since the mid-80s.
    Reply
  • Frenetic Pony - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    Well done analysis, though the kick in the head was Bulldozer and it's utter failure. Core 2 wasn't really AMD's downfall so much as Core/Sandy Bridge, which came at the exact wrong time for the utter failure of Bulldozer. This combined with AMD's dismal failure to market its graphics card has cost them billions. Even this article calls the 290x problematic, a card that offered the same performance as the original Titan at a fraction of the price. Based on empirical data the 290/x should have been almost continuously sold until the introduction of Nvidia's Maxwell architecture.

    Instead people continued to buy the much less performant per dollar Nvidia cards and/or waited for "the good GPU company" to put out their new architecture. AMD's performance in marketing has been utterly appalling at the same time Nvidia's has been extremely tight. Whether that will, or even can, change next year remains to be seen.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now